What do you think?
Rate this book
BFI Film Classics
Sweet Smell of Success
One of the most daring films of the 1950s, the dark satire Sweet Smell of Success, took on McCarthyism at a time when film studios were cringing under the repressive eye of the censors and an equally intimidating political and media environment. Starring Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis, this film was the first of its kind to take on the Hollywood system as it served up a dose of revenge for the left against the suffocating cultural atmosphere of the period. James Naremore’s insightful study offers new information about the many revisions of the screenplay, negotiations with censors, and the tense circumstances under which the film was shot and received by critics and the public. He also provides a detailed commentary on the finished product, analyzing the important contributions of its several talented creators.
- GenresNonfictionFilm
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
68 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
February 18, 2021
Sidney Falco, one of the all time slimeballs of cinema (played by the number one heart-throb of the time Tony Curtis) says stuff like
The cat's in the bag and the bag's in the river
to denote a plan that’s working; and when he meets with some criticism for his presumptuousness, he says
Kill me, push me through a window somewhere! I walked into this hallowed ground without knocking!
It’s a great performance. Burt Lancaster, two-fisted he-man of many pix like From Here to Eternity and The Crimson Pirate, where his circus acrobat training came in handy, plays JJ Hunsecker, a heavily bespectacled showbiz columnist and gossipmonger who hardly moves from his reserved table in his ritzy club or his penthouse suite. He waves an unlit cigarette somewhere in the direction of his nasty hanger-on and says
Match me, Sidney
This great movie is relentlessly miserable and it’s easy to see why people stayed away in 1957. Professor Naremore gives us a very solid account of the complicated background (Alexander Mackendrick, the director, said “Screenplays aren’t written, they’re rewritten”). All the background about the final challenging of McCarthyism by leftwingers like Burt and script(re)writer Clifford Odets was very interesting - I would love to discuss it. There are always 25 crisscrossing stories behind every movie, never mind the story the movie is actually telling. I’m glad I never review films, it’s too hard.
The cat's in the bag and the bag's in the river
to denote a plan that’s working; and when he meets with some criticism for his presumptuousness, he says
Kill me, push me through a window somewhere! I walked into this hallowed ground without knocking!
It’s a great performance. Burt Lancaster, two-fisted he-man of many pix like From Here to Eternity and The Crimson Pirate, where his circus acrobat training came in handy, plays JJ Hunsecker, a heavily bespectacled showbiz columnist and gossipmonger who hardly moves from his reserved table in his ritzy club or his penthouse suite. He waves an unlit cigarette somewhere in the direction of his nasty hanger-on and says
Match me, Sidney
This great movie is relentlessly miserable and it’s easy to see why people stayed away in 1957. Professor Naremore gives us a very solid account of the complicated background (Alexander Mackendrick, the director, said “Screenplays aren’t written, they’re rewritten”). All the background about the final challenging of McCarthyism by leftwingers like Burt and script(re)writer Clifford Odets was very interesting - I would love to discuss it. There are always 25 crisscrossing stories behind every movie, never mind the story the movie is actually telling. I’m glad I never review films, it’s too hard.
April 13, 2024
A serious book about a serious film.
Sweet Smell of Success may not be on the lips of many people when they list the great films, but this film has a density unlike many others. The two leads are fully committed to their roles, with Curtis playing out of character, and Lancaster very much revealing his own dark menace to a frightening degree.
The film is solid throughout, the soundtrack, the directing, the editing and cinematography are all at the top of their craft – you could freezeframe at any point and spend hours analysing a single frame.
This BFI guide is just as well structured, explaining the background, the development, filming and aftermath (despite its reputation amongst those who know, it was not a success and is rarely played now). Packed with detail (over 100 pages) with good use of still images.
Excellent.
Sweet Smell of Success may not be on the lips of many people when they list the great films, but this film has a density unlike many others. The two leads are fully committed to their roles, with Curtis playing out of character, and Lancaster very much revealing his own dark menace to a frightening degree.
The film is solid throughout, the soundtrack, the directing, the editing and cinematography are all at the top of their craft – you could freezeframe at any point and spend hours analysing a single frame.
This BFI guide is just as well structured, explaining the background, the development, filming and aftermath (despite its reputation amongst those who know, it was not a success and is rarely played now). Packed with detail (over 100 pages) with good use of still images.
Excellent.
January 27, 2011
When ever I go to a supper place and have a drink of wine or a martini and sit by myself looking over the restaurant I think of Burt Landcaster in "Sweet Smell of Success." i would like to think i have that type of power to take over a table - but alas the imagination is stronger than life. And that imagination is a film "Sweet Smell of Success."
James Naremore wrote a nice study on the film, but what is really interesting is the story off the screen. For instance the Landcaster character is based on Walter Mitchell, who at the time, was the master of the media. Information = gossip = power in Mitchell's hand, and this film had to be a daring approach to a 'god' of sorts.
Also the film is perfectly cast, with great dialogue. The Criterion DVD version is coming out shortly, and that is a must as well, right?
James Naremore wrote a nice study on the film, but what is really interesting is the story off the screen. For instance the Landcaster character is based on Walter Mitchell, who at the time, was the master of the media. Information = gossip = power in Mitchell's hand, and this film had to be a daring approach to a 'god' of sorts.
Also the film is perfectly cast, with great dialogue. The Criterion DVD version is coming out shortly, and that is a must as well, right?
August 31, 2023
Sweet Smell of Success by James Namore is part of the BFI Film Classics Series. This compact and comprehensive volume full of high quality photo stills from the film is brim full of facts and background about the movie. It starts with background information on the novella by Ernest Lehman that led to the creation of the screenplay and movie. An overview of the main players involved in the production of this film is given allowing you to sense the motivations and some of the human drama between the various personalities.
Namore informs us that the film was a product of the Hecht-Hill-Lancaster production company, formed by Burt Lancaster and his agent with the addition of a third partner. HHL was responsible for a number of notable American films during the 50’s. The film is undoubtedly dark, through and through—from the classic film noir atmosphere to the conflicts between those involved in the making of the movie. It depicts the cynical world of the “entertainment” industry and foreshadows the “reality shows” of our own time. There was extensive rewriting of the script (based on Lehman’s novella, which it generally stayed true to) by the talented Clifford Odets, the stunningly artistic black and white photography and camera work of James Wong Howe, and the professionalism of director Alexander Mackendrick. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis were naturals in their leading roles.
The book actually gives us nearly a scene-by-scene breakdown of the filming of the movie and the action sequences taking place. It was not a box office success and received mixed results from critics. It was one of the last major films done by HHL. However, it has become appreciated and an arthouse favorite in recent years.
After reading Sweet Smell of Success I honestly feel like I have seen the movie, though I have not. It’s a very thorough compendium!
Namore informs us that the film was a product of the Hecht-Hill-Lancaster production company, formed by Burt Lancaster and his agent with the addition of a third partner. HHL was responsible for a number of notable American films during the 50’s. The film is undoubtedly dark, through and through—from the classic film noir atmosphere to the conflicts between those involved in the making of the movie. It depicts the cynical world of the “entertainment” industry and foreshadows the “reality shows” of our own time. There was extensive rewriting of the script (based on Lehman’s novella, which it generally stayed true to) by the talented Clifford Odets, the stunningly artistic black and white photography and camera work of James Wong Howe, and the professionalism of director Alexander Mackendrick. Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis were naturals in their leading roles.
The book actually gives us nearly a scene-by-scene breakdown of the filming of the movie and the action sequences taking place. It was not a box office success and received mixed results from critics. It was one of the last major films done by HHL. However, it has become appreciated and an arthouse favorite in recent years.
After reading Sweet Smell of Success I honestly feel like I have seen the movie, though I have not. It’s a very thorough compendium!
September 26, 2024
I’d have liked more discussion on the impact of the movie. Saying that, I learned a bucket load.
May 9, 2025
A fine overview of one of my favorite films.
May 21, 2013
Since I recently saw the film-noir classic Sweet Smell of Success, I thought I'd read the BFI book version of Sweet Smell Of Success (2010) by critic James Naremore. The book is divided into six sections. The first, Roman a Clef, is a discussion of Ernest Lehman's novella from which the screenplay was adapted. This is followed by "Twilight of the Gods," where Naremore looks at how Burt Lancaster's production company became interested in producing the film. Section three, "A Pain in the Stomach," discusses the planning of the film in which Lehman was removed as director much to his own relief, he was having a stress related disorder in relation to the production. He was replaced by Alexander Mackendrick. "Re-writing Re-writing Re-writing" looks at the constant adaptation of the original script by Clifford Odets, who was brought in to punch up the dialogue of the script, but was also successful in creating more tension and drama from the original script which relied too much on one on one exchanges. The fifth section, "Showtime" is a scene by scene analysis of the story. And "Aftermath and Retrospect" looks at the film's immediate reception, which was a disappointment. However, the film gained prestige over time and established a reputation as one of the better film-noir movies of all-time.
May 6, 2012
Interesting study of what is arguably one of the best American movies of the Fifties. The first part of the book contextualises the film well, providing some discussion of the film's social backdrop and the details of its production. However, the second half of the book is devoted to an analysis of the film itself - which is fine, except that Naremore chooses to analyse the movie through what is effectively an extended synopsis, a blow-by-blow account of the onscreen action. This is a method of analysis that I find frustrating, as the reader might as well watch the film again.
That said, there are some good insights here, and the first half of the book is very good. I just wish Naremore had considered an alternate structure/methodology for the second half of the book (ie, the textual analysis of the movie itself).
That said, there are some good insights here, and the first half of the book is very good. I just wish Naremore had considered an alternate structure/methodology for the second half of the book (ie, the textual analysis of the movie itself).
June 15, 2011
Closer to 3.5 stars. This is the first book I've read from the BFI Films series. It's quite short (only 110 pages) and I suppose it's designed to give the reader the gist of the movie. It gives a few interesting details and provides scattered insight into certain aspects of the film, but is far from comprehensive.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews